< GitHub8> [bitcoin] tatobg opened pull request #8155: 0.12 (master...0.12) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/8155
< GitHub28> [bitcoin] sipa closed pull request #8155: 0.12 (master...0.12) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/8155
< GitHub25> [bitcoin] laanwj pushed 2 new commits to master: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/52c3f348bec3...cfc6da0b1b81
< GitHub25> bitcoin/master fa51a1d MarcoFalke: [init] Make feefilter option debug option
< GitHub25> bitcoin/master cfc6da0 Wladimir J. van der Laan: Merge #8151: [init] Make feefilter option debug option...
< GitHub52> [bitcoin] laanwj closed pull request #8151: [init] Make feefilter option debug option (master...Mf1606-feefilterDebug) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/8151
< GitHub147> [bitcoin] jpdffonseca opened pull request #8158: Simplify calls to retrieve credit and balance (master...enhancement/unification-wallet-balance) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/8158
< MarcoFalke> jonasschnelli: VNULL is already a valid type
< MarcoFalke> Let's not change its meaning to VANY just for checkObj
< MarcoFalke> I could change it to a cpp union but it will still be a wrapper, I assume
< jonasschnelli> MarcoFalke: yes. Fair enought...
< GitHub9> [bitcoin] laanwj pushed 2 new commits to master: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/cfc6da0b1b81...9b6a48c2e996
< GitHub9> bitcoin/master bd0f413 Jonas Nick: Reduce unnecessary hashing in signrawtransaction
< GitHub9> bitcoin/master 9b6a48c Wladimir J. van der Laan: Merge #8118: Reduce unnecessary hashing in signrawtransaction...
< GitHub145> [bitcoin] laanwj closed pull request #8118: Reduce unnecessary hashing in signrawtransaction (master...faster-signraw) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/8118
< GitHub75> [bitcoin] laanwj pushed 2 new commits to master: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/9b6a48c2e996...22e0b3567623
< GitHub75> bitcoin/master 8b78486 Jonas Schnelli: Log/report in 10% steps during VerifyDB
< GitHub75> bitcoin/master 22e0b35 Wladimir J. van der Laan: Merge #8136: Log/report in 10% steps during VerifyDB...
< GitHub153> [bitcoin] laanwj closed pull request #8136: Log/report in 10% steps during VerifyDB (master...2016/06/init_checkblocks) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/8136
< GitHub104> [bitcoin] jmcorgan reopened pull request #8148: Backport leveldb build integration to 0.12 (0.12...0.12) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/8148
< GitHub146> [bitcoin] iblis17 opened pull request #8159: PR demo (master...iblis-demo) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/8159
< GitHub50> [bitcoin] iblis17 closed pull request #8159: PR demo (master...iblis-demo) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/8159
< sipa> wumpus: what do you think about including arm-linux-gnueabihf binaries in the distribution?
< wumpus> sipa: yes we should definitely have ARMHF and ARM64 binary tarballs
< wumpus> there was a pull doing this, but it was closed at some point (because it was the wrong way to do it) and no one picked it up
< wumpus> hm I can't find it, may have been confused with something else, in any case it'd be welcome
< wumpus> created an issue for ithttps://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/8162
< jonasschnelli> wumpus: mind taking a look at https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/7957? Would be nice to have this merged. Simplifies RBF testing. :)
< wumpus> sure
< wumpus> jonasschnelli: should there be a test in src/test/data/bitcoin-util-test.json for the new -tx behavior?
< jonasschnelli> wumpus: wasn't aware of a test script bit bitcoin-tx... i'll have a look
< wumpus> yes not many people realize that :) it gets executed with `make test`
< wumpus> eh make check
< wumpus> by bitcoin-util-test.py
< sipa> but only make check in the root, not make check in src/
< sipa> i'd like to see some review on #8084 and #8065
< sipa> #8065 should be easy to test by monitoring fails added to addrman, and disconnecting your network cable
< jonasschnelli> sipa: was the seeder flag check correct (if (id >= 0 && (idToInfo[id].services & requestedFlags) == requestedFlags) {)?
< jonasschnelli> haven't double checked
< sipa> jonasschnelli: no, i don't understand why it can be correct
< sipa> i'm fixing it now
< sipa> (but maybe i'm missing something)
< sipa> so feel free to explain why you think it is
< paveljanik> jonasschnelli, wumpus: in src/rpc, we shadow global tableRPC by the same-named argument to all Register*RPCCommands(CRPCTable &table). Before changing all names (by adding underscore), do we really want to pass the global in and then shadow it by the same named argument? What about removing the argument instead?
< sipa> how about renaming the global? :)
< paveljanik> there are millions of use of it outside the register part...
< sipa> well, in an ideal world there would not be a global (or at least not one that's commonly used)
< jonasschnelli> sipa: right. It should be the same like this line: https://github.com/sipa/bitcoin-seeder/pull/36/files#diff-623e3fd6da1a45222eeec71496747b31R185
< jonasschnelli> Tell me if you want me to PR
< sipa> i'll do it
< jonasschnelli> thanks!
< paveljanik> sipa, I prefer to rename argument names
< sipa> paveljanik: ok
< paveljanik> to e.g. t ;-)
< paveljanik> to save a lot of bytes ;-)
< sipa> paveljanik: an alternative is making the tableRPC global static (and not exposed from rpc/server.cpp), and instead add a function that just calls tableRPC.appendCommand
< sipa> it's not shadowing if the global isn't visible
< paveljanik> this can't work: qt/rpcconsole.cpp: UniValue result = tableRPC.execute(
< sipa> ok, a wrapper for that too :)
< paveljanik> and now clang-fu it ;-)
< wumpus> sipa: well the idea is to make it possible to have multiple rpc tables
< wumpus> sipa: that's why tablerpc is an argument to Register* in the first place
< paveljanik> yes
< wumpus> this makes it possible to have multiple RPC entry points, at some point
< jonasschnelli> Yes. The idea of the register is to avoid a superglobal dispatch table.
< wumpus> probably it shouldn't be a global though
< wumpus> agree with that
< wumpus> but please don't hardcode tablerpc
< jonasschnelli> The table itself should be a rpc-server object.
< jonasschnelli> Modules should "register" callbacks.
< paveljanik> I'm most inclned to rename arguments to t...
< wumpus> in any case, let's not entangle this with the refactor to remove shadowing
< sipa> paveljanik: whatever is easiest
< sipa> indeed, they're orthogonal improvements
< paveljanik> sure
< paveljanik> will do
< paveljanik> this as one PR.
< GitHub19> [bitcoin] laanwj pushed 4 new commits to master: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/22e0b3567623...79004d4ae671
< GitHub19> bitcoin/master a946bb6 Jonas Schnelli: [RPC] createrawtransaction: add option to set the sequence number per input
< GitHub19> bitcoin/master e59336f Jonas Schnelli: [bitcoin-tx] allow to set nSequence number over the in= command
< GitHub19> bitcoin/master ae357d5 Jonas Schnelli: [Bitcoin-Tx] Add tests for sequence number support
< GitHub140> [bitcoin] laanwj closed pull request #7957: [RPC][Bitcoin-TX] Add support for sequence number (master...2016/04/rbf_base) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/7957
< GitHub110> [bitcoin] paveljanik opened pull request #8163: Do not shadow global RPC table variable (tableRPC) (master...20160607_shadowing_rpc) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/8163
< jonasschnelli> sipa: should we not provide a default whitelist?
< sipa> jonasschnelli: there is one
< jonasschnelli> Ah.. right
< sipa> line 148
< jonasschnelli> 1,5,9,13... hmm..
< sipa> also, servicebits were already printed in dnsseed.dump
< jonasschnelli> You don't want to add NODE_GETUTXO to the WL?
< sipa> no
< jonasschnelli> Okay. Right. Not by default.
< sipa> you can enable it if you need it
< jonasschnelli> ack
< GitHub40> [bitcoin] jonasschnelli opened pull request #8164: [Tests] fix missing test fixtures in Makefile.test.include (master...2016/04/rbf_base) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/8164
< jonasschnelli> Travis is currently failing.
< jonasschnelli> Was my fault... sorry.
< jonasschnelli> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/8164 should fix it.
< jonasschnelli> Hmm.. is this not 32bit save? uint32_t nSequenceIn=std::numeric_limits<unsigned int>::max();
< jonasschnelli> (seems to fail on travis 32bit)
< * jonasschnelli> is booting up 32bit linux
< jonasschnelli> Ah.. i'm using atoi() for uint32_t,... not good.
< sipa> on all our supported platforms int is 32 bit
< jonasschnelli> sipa: Yes. But I guess atoi() throws away the unsigned? Does always use signed int IMO.
< jonasschnelli> Trying now with std::stoul()
< Danco_> Hello may i make a GPU question here?
< jonasschnelli> Danco_: depends if its bitcoin-core-dev relevant... but shoot!
< Danco_> Hello, i have a hardware question about my GPU capacita, I have an AMD 4870x2, and i want to know how many Mhash/s could i make with it. I found in this link: https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Non-specialized_hardware_comparison its  between 180.6 and 203 Mhash... But i'm not quite sure, But in this link : https://litecoin.info/Mining_hardware_comparison#AMD_.28ATI.29 its just 142kH/s, so i'm pretty confused.
< Danco_> There it is
< jonasschnelli> I guess the only way is by trying it yourself. :)
< jonasschnelli> But GPU mining is history? right?
< jonasschnelli> (at least on the bitcoin blockchain)
< Danco_> For Litecoin is still useful.
< btcdrak> Danco_: it's probably a question for #bitcoin-dev or #bitcoin. this channel is specifically for Bitcoin Core development.
< Danco_> Ok ok i'll make it there :D thanks.
< GitHub70> [bitcoin] paveljanik opened pull request #8166: src/test: Do not shadow local variables (master...20160607_shadowing_tests) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/8166
< jonasschnelli> Why use strtoll instead of std::stoul?
< cfields_> jonasschnelli: typo. stoll would work, i was just making the point that i think it needs to be a long long to be completely safe
< sipa> oh, i didn't know about stoll!
< cfields_> jonasschnelli: feel free to ignore, I'm not familiar enough there to know if it's necessary to be paranoid there.
< cfields_> - a "there"
< jonasschnelli> cfields_: yeah. Me too. :)
< cfields_> sipa: c++11's full of surprises :)
< jonasschnelli> But I guess there are other placed in bitcoin-tx where we do not check for overflows (like vout, etc.)
< jonasschnelli> Travis is currently failing on master.
< jonasschnelli> So a quick review and merge of https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/8164 would be great.
< cfields_> jonasschnelli: right, probably low on the list of real concerns
< cfields_> jonasschnelli: sec, i'm looking up the actual failure. I'd hate mask real bugs there.
< cfields_> jonasschnelli: ok, just tested. It's pretty easy to screw that up, especially if you're typing a seq by hand and add one too many digits. Silently inserting the wrong value is pretty nasty.
< cfields_> jonasschnelli: http://pastebin.com/raw/Yz18syyR
< sipa> luke-jr: good thing BIP8 was never assigned https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BIP-8 (image what would happen if something related to error correction or checksums got that...)